GHOSTBUSTERS (1984): Making Hamburgers Out of Sacred Cows

The unexpected smash hit Ghostbusters from 1984 is not what you think it is.

On the surface this film tells the story of a capitalist venture where three university scientists are fired from their comfortable positions entrenched in the left-wing halls of academia and forced to fend for themselves in the world of trickle-down Reaganomics, but we must look deeper.
The writers of the film, Dan Ackroyd (Canadian) and Harold Ramis (Illinois born) were then, and remain, liberal.  The director, Canadian Ivan Reitman, is also on the left, politically-speaking.  1984 was the middle of the Reagan Era and the president faced criticism from the media on his foreign and domestic policies.  In the wake of the economically disastrous Carter Administration the supply-side economics (or as I prefer to call them free-market economics) of the Reagan Administration produced some of the most politically charged, if not immediately obviously so, works of the television and film industries.
Yet there was money to spend.  There was much money to spend.  The fact that Ghostbusters ended the year as the highest grossing film of the year in a time before streaming video, instant rental, and without taking into account VHS rentals and sales (this was 1984) shows that people were going into theaters to buy popcorn and overpriced candy and put bums in seats.  My own comfortably middle class childhood was not one of constant theater visits, but my parents took me to see Ghostbusters in the weeks after it released, and not after it came to the cheap dollar theater.
In terms of merchandising Ghostbusters produced a modest amount.  This is not taking into account the sequel, the children's cartoon (called The Real Ghostbusters), the toys associated with the cartoon, and comic books.  Again, purely anecdotal evidence, I owned a t-shirt with the GB Logo that was airbrushed and so completely unlicensed and illegal.  I also had the soundtrack on LP and the Activision game on my C-64.  This modest little film about 4 normal American men facing a world-ending supernatural crisis turned into a capitalist bonanza, an embarrassment of riches in 1984.

My original point, however, is that this is not what it is about at all.  After all, if it was about the free-market then the writers and director would be the worst sort of hypocrites, would they not?
Therefore it must be a satire excoriating capitalism and the free-market of Reagan's America.  A socialist polemic against the hated patriarchal enemy.

What evidence can I produce for this?

Viewing the film it is easy to see that Bill Murray's character of Peter Venkman is the driving force of the original trio.  Each character, including the supporting characters of Janine Melnitz, Winston Zeddemore, Dana Barrett, and Louis Tully, is of a type.  Egon represents science as authority, morally justified in itself, prefiguring the modern role that science plays as supreme authority in all matters of social and political justice.  Venkman represents the oily businessman who misrepresents science, morality, and politics as a tool to increase gains.  Ray Stantz represents the wide-eyed optimism and hope of the enlightened liberal whose nobler aspirations are kept in check by the uncaring greed of the system.  Winston is the working-class hero that must accept the lies of the system to make ends meet.  Of the supporting cast Dana represents the arts and their importance to the culture.  It is telling that she is courted by the capitalist who cares nothing for what she actually is, only what she can bring to his portfolio, in the form of Venkman.  Janine is the distaff counterpart to Winston.  She is the unappreciated woman whose skills and talents have no chance to succeed in the patriarchal world where she is forced to live.  "I've quit better jobs than this," Janine says.  Her attraction to Egon is symbolic of her understanding that only through embracing pure science will the remainder of the cast see her true genetic value.  Finally, Louis Tully, a comic relief figure in a comedic film, is, of course, an accountant-the dreaded tool of the capitalist right-wing to bring about economic agendas.  His representation as a feckless, gormless, sexually impotent dork is the strongest overt symbol of the film's agenda.
Now you might be tempted to point to the character of EPA representative Walter Peck and say this goes against the satirical agenda, but no, it actually supports it.  By 1984 the organization known as Greenpeace was gaining media support from famous actors as they worked to oppose nuclear proliferation, a major component of Reagan's foreign policy agenda.  Thus Peck represents the sell-out, ineffectual government agencies that were underfunded at best, and used to buy public opinion at worst, without providing the service for which they were designed.  Greenpeace and similar organizations argued that legislation was needed, but that the impetus would come from the people, not the token organizations put in place by the evil Republican government.

 In terms of the plot, the protagonists are unjustly ousted from their pure research lives and must fend for themselves in the harsh Reaganomics dominated world of America, 1984.  When the notion of capturing ghosts is brought forward seriously, it is Capitalist Peter Venkman that baits the hook, telling Ray Stantz, "The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams."  Ray's comment that this startup will require much capital takes us to a scene a visibly shocked Ray who was just mortgaged his family home, his inheritance ("my parents left me that house") to gain the startup funds.  Venkman assures him that "everyone has three mortgages these days" before Egon points out the interest payments alone to Ray, causing further emotional collapse.
After gaining their first paying job, in a scene following a comment that they are eating a meal of take-out Chinese that represents the last of their petty cash (note, this "joke" follows a comment by the avaricious Venkman that he needs to draw some petty cash to woo Dana Barrett to keep from losing the client-in actuality the capitalist is taking advantage of the artist).  Upon completion of the job the team, having not previously determined what the fee structure for their business would be (how did the bank ever approve this business plan?  It didn't, hence Ray's selling off his inheritance to pay for it) allows Venkman to bluff, bully, and otherwise use his considerable skills in chicanery to hold the hotel manager hostage for a then staggering fee of $5000, and they don't have to pay for the damages.  Egon provides the number, based on his own realization of their financial crisis.  Naturally Venkman plays this off as a "discount" price.

What follows is scenes of the Ghostbusters being seen as a new pop cultural sensation.  This goodwill lasts until Peck shuts down the power to the containment grid and then they are blamed for what is, essentially, improper storage of hazardous waste.  Jailed for their failure to be good stewards they are only released to allow them to "save the world" on a pro-bono basis.  Here is the ultimate point.  They only become heroes when they put aside their capitalist drives and do something for their fellow human beings.  Even the avaricious Venkman comes to learn this.

Various lines, many of them ad-libbed by Murray (Illinois born, known supporter of the Green Party and Ralph Nader), clearly point out the anti-capitalist sentiment of the work.  "No job to big; no fee too big"-Peter Venkman.  Venkman's marketing concerns about the Ghostbusters brand, such as when the first signage is going up at the HQ, his willingness to use litigation to fight Peck, at the drop of a hat, no less, and his general lack of concern for both science and the actual science of their business point to Peter Venkman as an obvious satire of the American Businessman, while the plot in general serves to show how the small business person is kept from achieving even a modest success by corporate barriers to entry.

You may be asking if the ghosts have any role in this pro-socialist, anti-capitalist agenda.  The answer is no.  The ghosts are merely the McGuffin for the plot.  You might stretch it to say that ghosts represent the ethereal aspects of commodities trading.  You might say that they are not real, their existence representing the unreal, non-corporeal aspects of trading in futures.  You might argue that the ghosts are, like the stock market, a tool that has value only to those that see it as valuable, but not an intrinsic value such that trading in the prospects of food, vice food itself, artificially drives up price and causes want in those that most need it, as Venkman drove up the price in the hotel on the capture of something that, essentially, they would not let anyone see and could not prove existed.  You could say all of that, but that would be silly, wouldn't it?